Any Attempt To Vilify A Religious Community Must Be Viewed With Grave Disfavour: SC In Sudarshan TV Case
Any Attempt to Vilify a Religious Community Must Be Viewed with Grave Disfavor: Supreme Court in Sudarshan TV Case
Background of the Sudarshan TV Case:
In 2017, Sudarshan TV, a private news channel, aired a program allegedly targeting the Muslim community, which led to allegations of hate speech and promoting communal disharmony. A complaint was filed against the channel and its anchors under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology Act for inciting hatred against a religious community.
The case reached the Supreme Court of India, which underscored the importance of safeguarding communal harmony and upholding the constitutional mandate of secularism.
Supreme Court’s Observations:
Grave Disfavor to Vilification of Religious Communities:
The Supreme Court explicitly held that any attempt to vilify, denigrate, or insult a religious community must be viewed with grave disfavor.
Such acts are not only socially harmful but also threaten the very fabric of India's pluralistic democracy.
Constitutional Mandate:
The Court reiterated that the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)), but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions to prevent hatred, violence, and discrimination.
The prohibition of hate speech is necessary to maintain public order (Article 19(2)) and preserve the right to equality (Article 14) and freedom of religion (Article 25).
Role of Media:
Media has a responsibility to promote harmony and peace, not to incite hatred.
The Court emphasized that media outlets must exercise restraint and adhere to ethical standards while reporting on sensitive issues involving religion.
Legal Accountability:
Individuals and organizations engaged in spreading hate speech are liable under IPC sections like:
Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups)
Section 295A (deliberate insult to religious beliefs)
Section 66A of the IT Act (though struck down, related provisions still apply)
The Court supported the enforcement of these laws to curb communal hatred.
Relevant Case Law:
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act but upheld the need to regulate hate speech that incites violence or public disorder.
It affirmed that free speech does not include speech that incites hatred or threatens the secular fabric.
2. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481
The Court held that the right to propagate religion cannot extend to inciting hatred or intolerance.
Freedom of religion is guaranteed but must be balanced with public order and communal harmony.
3. Balwant Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 783
This case dealt with hate speech and its impact on communal peace.
The Court held that speech intended to promote enmity among groups is punishable and not protected under free speech.
4. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955
The Court defined the limits of free speech in relation to public order.
It observed that speech that incites violence or hatred against any community is not protected.
Importance of the Supreme Court’s Stand:
It sends a strong message against communalism and hate speech.
Reinforces the idea that freedom of expression is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly.
Upholds the constitutional vision of India as a secular, democratic republic where all religions are respected.
Encourages media and public figures to avoid language that could incite communal disharmony.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Sudarshan TV case underscores that any attempt to vilify a religious community threatens national unity and secularism and must be dealt with firmly by law. The balance between freedom of speech and maintenance of public order requires vigilance, and the Court has made it clear that hate speech against any religious group will not be tolerated.
RELATED Blog
0 comments